Infographinomicon

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Without having looked back at this years posts, I am aware there are at least several elections I have not properly recapped and analysed my predictions. I intend to redress this towards the end of the year with a post considering each election covered by this blog. And there are several elections ahead that I probably will not cover, but I will at least allow myself space to do so. Switzerland will hold a referendum on November 27 regarding the phase-out of nuclear power plants. Austria had a two-stage election for president this year, with the second controversial round being annulled and rescheduled for December 4. And the Gaza Strip could still have its on-again, off-again municipal elections this year.

Despite this, I think the 2016 US presidential election deserves some specific analysis. A full breakdown of my predictions and their accuracy will occur at the end of the year (we are, after all, still awaiting the results of Michigan, pending a possible recount). This will include a discussion of an error I should, in the interest of not hiding my mistakes, point out at the earliest opportunity (i.e. now). Maine and Nebraska were stated to split their electoral college votes proportionally during my predictions. This is not the case; both states deliver two electoral college seats (representing their senators) on a winner-takes-all basis, and the rest by first-past-the-post in their congressional districts (representing their members of the house).

What I will be looking at here, instead, will be the large scale result that surprised me as much as the other pollsters relying on US polling data: the victory of Donald Trump. In the minds of some, this is a result of racist, sexist and generally hateful voters. For others this is a rejection of politics as usual and a desire for change. For yet more, this is a far stronger emotion--revenge upon those who have made America not-great. I'll be comparing these three proposed rationalisations against the results to see which fit the data.

RACISM

There are many metrics that can be used to estimate which US states are the most racist. The most popular have been by analysis of twitter posts and google searches (the latter having first been used in psephological analysis of Obama's electoral prospects), however these are unreliable for certain reasons (including access and use of internet due to varying demographics between states and the fact that many terms flagged as offensive have been reclaimed by minorities and used in a positive context). Instead I'll be using the FBI Hate Crimes Statistics 2015, which while also flawed (such as relying on crimes being reported) is somewhat more rigorous.

STATE

POPULATION

AGENCIES

POPULATION REPORTED %

RACIAL HATE CRIMES

TOTAL

EXAMINED

% EXAMINED

TOTAL

REPORTING

% REPORTING

REPORTED

CALCULATED

PER MILLION

Alabama

4,858,979

1,252,146

25.8%

34

3

8.8%

2.3%

8

352

72.41

Alaska

738,432

734,820

99.5%

33

4

12.1%

12.1%

7

58

78.59

Arizona

6,828,065

6,622,880

97.0%

101

21

20.8%

20.2%

162

803

117.64

Arkansas

2,978,204

2,754,543

92.5%

279

4

1.4%

1.3%

3

226

75.97

California

39,144,818

39,137,326

100.0%

730

213

29.2%

29.2%

427

1464

37.39

Colorado

5,456,574

5,445,853

99.8%

234

42

17.9%

17.9%

65

363

66.50

Connecticut

3,590,886

3,399,068

94.7%

95

44

46.3%

43.8%

62

141

39.38

Delaware

945,934

945,934

100.0%

60

7

11.7%

11.7%

9

77

81.55

D. C.

672,228

672,228

100.0%

2

2

100.0%

100.0%

23

23

34.21

Florida

20,271,272

5,356,877

26.4%

38

36

94.7%

25.0%

44

176

8.67

Georgia

10,214,860

7,991,234

78.2%

473

7

1.5%

1.2%

32

2764

270.58

Hawaii

1,431,603

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0

N/A

N/A

Idaho

1,654,930

1,654,475

100.0%

112

19

17.0%

17.0%

14

83

49.88

Illinois

12,859,995

12,501,008

97.2%

741

43

5.8%

5.6%

59

1046

81.33

Indiana

6,619,680

3,224,755

48.7%

168

18

10.7%

5.2%

43

824

124.45

Iowa

3,123,899

3,105,094

99.4%

237

5

2.1%

2.1%

3

143

45.80

Kansas

2,911,641

2,741,323

94.2%

345

34

9.9%

9.3%

46

496

170.27

Kentucky

4,425,092

4,402,368

99.5%

403

83

20.6%

20.5%

113

551

124.63

Louisiana

4,670,724

3,711,824

79.5%

148

15

10.1%

8.1%

22

273

58.48

Maine

1,329,328

1,329,328

100.0%

184

14

7.6%

7.6%

16

210

158.19

Maryland

6,006,401

6,006,401

100.0%

154

11

7.1%

7.1%

22

308

51.28

Massachusetts

6,794,422

6,566,279

96.6%

342

85

24.9%

24.0%

198

824

121.33

Michigan

9,922,576

9,834,270

99.1%

617

127

20.6%

20.4%

198

971

97.81

Minnesota

5,489,594

5,218,435

95.1%

319

27

8.5%

8.0%

58

721

131.32

Mississippi

2,992,333

763,830

25.5%

43

0

0.0%

0.0%

0

N/A

N/A

Missouri

6,083,672

6,079,483

99.9%

628

28

4.5%

4.5%

70

1571

258.25

Montana

1,032,949

1,023,807

99.1%

101

13

12.9%

12.8%

28

219

212.48

Nebraska

1,896,190

1,821,196

96.0%

227

3

1.3%

1.3%

10

788

415.48

Nevada

2,890,845

2,890,845

100.0%

53

6

11.3%

11.3%

36

318

110.00

New Hamp.

1,330,608

1,267,715

95.3%

168

9

5.4%

5.1%

8

157

117.80

New Jersey

8,958,013

8,956,395

100.0%

508

123

24.2%

24.2%

169

698

77.93

New Mexico

2,085,109

574,972

27.6%

18

2

11.1%

3.1%

8

261

125.22

New York

19,795,791

19,766,342

99.9%

575

60

10.4%

10.4%

136

1305

65.94

North Carolina

10,042,802

10,041,690

100.0%

532

52

9.8%

9.8%

106

1085

108.00

North Dakota

756,927

756,927

100.0%

112

19

17.0%

17.0%

29

171

225.84

Ohio

11,613,423

9,781,677

84.2%

595

109

18.3%

15.4%

309

2003

172.44

Oklahoma

3,911,338

3,896,985

99.6%

351

29

8.3%

8.2%

27

328

83.86

Oregon

4,028,977

1,671,416

41.5%

130

16

12.3%

5.1%

41

803

199.31

Pennsylvania

12,802,503

12,550,581

98.0%

1,436

26

1.8%

1.8%

40

2254

176.03

Rhode Island

1,056,298

1,056,298

100.0%

49

8

16.3%

16.3%

6

37

34.79

South Carolina

4,896,146

4,826,241

98.6%

436

40

9.2%

9.0%

44

487

99.37

South Dakota

858,469

782,152

91.1%

121

9

7.4%

6.8%

9

133

154.70

Tennessee

6,600,299

6,600,299

100.0%

463

61

13.2%

13.2%

157

1192

180.55

Texas

27,469,114

27,390,337

99.7%

1,026

62

6.0%

6.0%

107

1776

64.65

Utah

2,995,919

2,966,781

99.0%

133

22

16.5%

16.4%

29

177

59.09

Vermont

626,042

626,042

100.0%

90

5

5.6%

5.6%

5

90

143.76

Virginia

8,382,993

8,380,278

100.0%

414

58

14.0%

14.0%

108

771

91.99

Washington

7,170,351

7,163,444

99.9%

256

79

30.9%

30.8%

160

519

72.38

West Virginia

1,844,128

1,494,503

81.0%

229

12

5.2%

4.2%

28

659

357.53

Wisconsin

5,771,337

5,580,752

96.7%

395

25

6.3%

6.1%

27

441

76.44

Wyoming

586,107

564,577

96.3%

57

1

1.8%

1.7%

2

118

201.92

With the exception of the 2015 state populations, derived from the US Census Bureau's population estimates (XLSX, CSV), all data is taken from the FBI report (specifically tables 12 and 13) or calculated therefrom:

number of hate crimes calculated to have occurred, per million people residing in the state

On these numbers, the most racist states are Nebraska, West Virginia, Georgia, Missouri and North Dakota. Data is not fully available for Hawaii and Mississippi. This data differs from the previously linked data, although West Virginia is also over-represented in anti-black tweets and racist google searches.

STATE

HATE CRIMES PER MILLION

TRUMP SUPPORT

Alabama

72.41

62.9%

Alaska

78.59

52.9%

Arizona

117.64

49.5%

Arkansas

75.97

60.4%

California

37.39

33.2%

Colorado

66.50

44.4%

Connecticut

39.38

41.7%

Delaware

81.55

41.9%

District of Columbia

34.21

4.1%

Florida

8.67

49.1%

Georgia

270.58

51.3%

Hawaii

N/A

30.1%

Idaho

49.88

59.2%

Illinois

81.33

39.4%

Indiana

124.45

57.2%

Iowa

45.80

51.8%

Kansas

170.27

57.2%

Kentucky

124.63

62.5%

Louisiana

58.48

58.1%

Maine

158.19

45.2%

Maryland

51.28

60.5%

Massachusetts

121.33

33.5%

Michigan

97.81

47.6%

Minnesota

131.32

45.4%

Mississippi

N/A

39.7%

Missouri

258.25

57.1%

Montana

212.48

56.5%

Nebraska

415.48

60.3%

Nevada

110.00

45.5%

New Hampshire

117.80

47.3%

New Jersey

77.93

41.8%

New Mexico

125.22

40.0%

New York

65.94

37.5%

North Carolina

108.00

50.5%

North Dakota

225.84

64.1%

Ohio

172.44

52.1%

Oklahoma

83.86

65.3%

Oregon

199.31

41.1%

Pennsylvania

176.03

48.8%

Rhode Island

34.79

39.8%

South Carolina

99.37

54.9%

South Dakota

154.70

61.5%

Tennessee

180.55

61.1%

Texas

64.65

52.6%

Utah

59.09

46.6%

Vermont

143.76

32.6%

Virginia

91.99

45.0%

Washington

72.38

38.3%

West Virginia

357.53

68.7%

Wisconsin

76.44

47.9%

Wyoming

201.92

70.1%

Pearson's Correlation

0.41

While there is a low correlation between primary votes for Trump ~(+.41) there are some obvious outliers; in particular the least racist state by our metrics is Florida (which many may disagree with) yet this was famously won by Trump (though by less than 50% of the popular vote).

SEXISM

Sexism has largely been studies by the same means as racism in the past, particularly through twitter posts. Since the FBI also records hate crimes motivated by gender, it is possible to perform the same analysis as above. However, there is such limited data that this does not provide much useful data:

STATE

POPULATION

AGENCIES

POPULATION REPORTED

RACIAL HATE CRIMES

TOTAL

EXAMINED

% EXAMINED

TOTAL

REPORTING

% REPORTING

REPORTED

CALCULATED

PER MILLION

Alabama

4,858,979

1,252,146

25.8%

34

3

8.8%

2.3%

0

0

0.00

Alaska

738,432

734,820

99.5%

33

4

12.1%

12.1%

0

0

0.00

Arizona

6,828,065

6,622,880

97.0%

101

21

20.8%

20.2%

0

0

0.00

Arkansas

2,978,204

2,754,543

92.5%

279

4

1.4%

1.3%

0

0

0.00

California

39,144,818

39,137,326

100.0%

730

213

29.2%

29.2%

1

3

0.09

Colorado

5,456,574

5,445,853

99.8%

234

42

17.9%

17.9%

0

0

0.00

Connecticut

3,590,886

3,399,068

94.7%

95

44

46.3%

43.8%

0

0

0.00

Delaware

945,934

945,934

100.0%

60

7

11.7%

11.7%

0

0

0.00

D.C.

672,228

672,228

100.0%

2

2

100.0%

100.0%

0

0

0.00

Florida

20,271,272

5,356,877

26.4%

38

36

94.7%

25.0%

0

0

0.00

Georgia

10,214,860

7,991,234

78.2%

473

7

1.5%

1.2%

0

0

0.00

Hawaii

1,431,603

0

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0

N/A

N/A

Idaho

1,654,930

1,654,475

100.0%

112

19

17.0%

17.0%

0

0

0.00

Illinois

12,859,995

12,501,008

97.2%

741

43

5.8%

5.6%

1

18

1.38

Indiana

6,619,680

3,224,755

48.7%

168

18

10.7%

5.2%

1

19

2.89

Iowa

3,123,899

3,105,094

99.4%

237

5

2.1%

2.1%

0

0

0.00

Kansas

2,911,641

2,741,323

94.2%

345

34

9.9%

9.3%

1

11

3.70

Kentucky

4,425,092

4,402,368

99.5%

403

83

20.6%

20.5%

0

0

0.00

Louisiana

4,670,724

3,711,824

79.5%

148

15

10.1%

8.1%

0

0

0.00

Maine

1,329,328

1,329,328

100.0%

184

14

7.6%

7.6%

0

0

0.00

Maryland

6,006,401

6,006,401

100.0%

154

11

7.1%

7.1%

0

0

0.00

Massachusetts

6,794,422

6,566,279

96.6%

342

85

24.9%

24.0%

15

62

9.19

Michigan

9,922,576

9,834,270

99.1%

617

127

20.6%

20.4%

1

5

0.49

Minnesota

5,489,594

5,218,435

95.1%

319

27

8.5%

8.0%

0

0

0.00

Mississippi

2,992,333

763,830

25.5%

43

0

0.0%

0.0%

0

N/A

N/A

Missouri

6,083,672

6,079,483

99.9%

628

28

4.5%

4.5%

0

0

0.00

Montana

1,032,949

1,023,807

99.1%

101

13

12.9%

12.8%

0

0

0.00

Nebraska

1,896,190

1,821,196

96.0%

227

3

1.3%

1.3%

0

0

0.00

Nevada

2,890,845

2,890,845

100.0%

53

6

11.3%

11.3%

0

0

0.00

New Hamp.

1,330,608

1,267,715

95.3%

168

9

5.4%

5.1%

0

0

0.00

New Jersey

8,958,013

8,956,395

100.0%

508

123

24.2%

24.2%

0

0

0.00

New Mexico

2,085,109

574,972

27.6%

18

2

11.1%

3.1%

0

0

0.00

New York

19,795,791

19,766,342

99.9%

575

60

10.4%

10.4%

0

0

0.00

North Carolina

10,042,802

10,041,690

100.0%

532

52

9.8%

9.8%

0

0

0.00

North Dakota

756,927

756,927

100.0%

112

19

17.0%

17.0%

0

0

0.00

Ohio

11,613,423

9,781,677

84.2%

595

109

18.3%

15.4%

0

0

0.00

Oklahoma

3,911,338

3,896,985

99.6%

351

29

8.3%

8.2%

0

0

0.00

Oregon

4,028,977

1,671,416

41.5%

130

16

12.3%

5.1%

0

0

0.00

Pennsylvania

12,802,503

12,550,581

98.0%

1,436

26

1.8%

1.8%

0

0

0.00

Rhode Island

1,056,298

1,056,298

100.0%

49

8

16.3%

16.3%

0

0

0.00

South Carolina

4,896,146

4,826,241

98.6%

436

40

9.2%

9.0%

0

0

0.00

South Dakota

858,469

782,152

91.1%

121

9

7.4%

6.8%

0

0

0.00

Tennessee

6,600,299

6,600,299

100.0%

463

61

13.2%

13.2%

1

8

1.15

Texas

27,469,114

27,390,337

99.7%

1,026

62

6.0%

6.0%

1

17

0.60

Utah

2,995,919

2,966,781

99.0%

133

22

16.5%

16.4%

0

0

0.00

Vermont

626,042

626,042

100.0%

90

5

5.6%

5.6%

0

0

0.00

Virginia

8,382,993

8,380,278

100.0%

414

58

14.0%

14.0%

0

0

0.00

Washington

7,170,351

7,163,444

99.9%

256

79

30.9%

30.8%

3

10

1.36

West Virginia

1,844,128

1,494,503

81.0%

229

12

5.2%

4.2%

0

0

0.00

Wisconsin

5,771,337

5,580,752

96.7%

395

25

6.3%

6.1%

1

16

2.83

Wyoming

586,107

564,577

96.3%

57

1

1.8%

1.7%

0

0

0.00

For the curious, there is a negligible negative correlation between this limited data and support for Trump (~-0.15).

Instead, I'll be using the rankings produced by WalletHub, which has combined a number of metrics more effectively than I could. For the large number of people that do not understand that the actual enemy of feminism is not men but the enforcement of gender roles, and that metrics that represent male disadvantage (e.g. incarceration rates and duration, length of working hours, child custody rates, life span etc.) are a direct result of these roles which, although disadvantaging men in these instances, have historically been enforced to limit female empowerment, allow me to point out that these metrics have been combined into this study even though the data is billed as regarding "women's equality". In other words, even though the majority of Trump's rhetoric relevant to the claim that Trump's support was supported by sexism has been directed against women, the inclusion of data highlighting examples of male disadvantage is relevant as it indicates more traditional, gender-role enforcing attitudes in the relevant states.

Interestingly, the correlation is again negative, but low at ~0.30:

STATE

WALLETHUB SCORE

TRUMP SUPPORT

Alabama

50.61

62.9%

Alaska

72.46

52.9%

Arizona

57.31

49.5%

Arkansas

51.57

60.4%

California

69.1

33.2%

Colorado

57.37

44.4%

Connecticut

51.46

41.7%

Delaware

54.22

41.9%

District of Columbia

N/A

4.1%

Florida

55.73

49.1%

Georgia

44.46

51.3%

Hawaii

81.67

30.1%

Idaho

50.29

59.2%

Illinois

58.59

39.4%

Indiana

56.35

57.2%

Iowa

58.37

51.8%

Kansas

53.92

57.2%

Kentucky

47.49

62.5%

Louisiana

45.45

58.1%

Maine

69.49

45.2%

Maryland

65.09

60.5%

Massachusetts

58.65

33.5%

Michigan

55.5

47.6%

Minnesota

66.1

45.4%

Mississippi

46.89

39.7%

Missouri

59.22

57.1%

Montana

51.58

56.5%

Nebraska

57.86

60.3%

Nevada

58.05

45.5%

New Hampshire

66.4

47.3%

New Jersey

44.97

41.8%

New Mexico

58.33

40.0%

New York

63.32

37.5%

North Carolina

50.42

50.5%

North Dakota

61.37

64.1%

Ohio

48.83

52.1%

Oklahoma

48.3

65.3%

Oregon

60.18

41.1%

Pennsylvania

45.15

48.8%

Rhode Island

49.08

39.8%

South Carolina

45.8

54.9%

South Dakota

57.86

61.5%

Tennessee

52.8

61.1%

Texas

49.77

52.6%

Utah

33.7

46.6%

Vermont

68.16

32.6%

Virginia

48.67

45.0%

Washington

61.93

38.3%

West Virginia

59.72

68.7%

Wisconsin

62.75

47.9%

Wyoming

57.11

70.1%

Pearson's Correlation

-0.30

POLITICAL DISCONTENT

Measuring voter discontent is difficult in the current election. Normally these votes emerge as protest votes or failure to vote. A higher 3rd party vote, for example, may indicate dissatisfaction with either candidate but (ignoring that dissatisfaction in this election was high in part due to Trump's candidacy) there is little to be learned by comparing Trump support with 3rd party results. Does a positive correlation indicate Trump is popular where voters are discontent? Or does a negative correlation indicate that he is absorbing the discontent vote?

Two proxy measures of discontent present themselves: 3rd party voting and non-voting in 2012 (inherently assuming this discontent is not the result of the last 4 years and was present in that data) and 3rd party voting in each state's other federal races this November. Both are problematic, of course. The former assumes little or no change in almost half a decade. The latter ignores the possible swell of Trump voters who turned out to vote (and who normally would not) due to the fervent support the candidate produced but didn't care about other races and therefore deliberately "wasted" their vote. I have gone with the former for a number of reasons, including the nature of Senate elections that mean not all states have a candidate for us to consider, and the frequent absence of any third party candidate in many HoR seats.

STATE

2012 TURNOUT

TRUMP SUPPORT

STATE

3RD PARTY

TRUMP SUPPORT

Alabama

58.60%

62.9%

Alabama

1.09%

62.9%

Alaska

58.70%

52.9%

Alaska

4.39%

52.9%

Arizona

52.60%

49.5%

Arizona

1.76%

49.5%

Arkansas

50.70%

60.4%

Arkansas

2.55%

60.4%

California

55.10%

33.2%

California

2.64%

33.2%

Colorado

69.90%

44.4%

Colorado

2.38%

44.4%

Connecticut

61.30%

41.7%

Connecticut

1.21%

41.7%

Delaware

62.30%

41.9%

Delaware

1.41%

41.9%

District of Columbia

61.50%

4.1%

District of Columbia

1.81%

4.1%

Florida

62.80%

49.1%

Florida

0.86%

49.1%

Georgia

59.00%

51.3%

Georgia

1.22%

51.3%

Hawaii

44.20%

30.1%

Hawaii

1.61%

30.1%

Idaho

59.80%

59.2%

Idaho

2.85%

59.2%

Illinois

58.90%

39.4%

Illinois

1.67%

39.4%

Indiana

55.20%

57.2%

Indiana

1.94%

57.2%

Iowa

70.30%

51.8%

Iowa

1.83%

51.8%

Kansas

56.90%

57.2%

Kansas

2.30%

57.2%

Kentucky

55.70%

62.5%

Kentucky

1.71%

62.5%

Louisiana

60.20%

58.1%

Louisiana

1.64%

58.1%

Maine

68.20%

45.2%

Maine

2.75%

45.2%

Maryland

66.60%

60.5%

Maryland

2.13%

60.5%

Massachusetts

65.90%

33.5%

Massachusetts

1.84%

33.5%

Michigan

64.70%

47.6%

Michigan

1.08%

47.6%

Minnesota

76.00%

45.4%

Minnesota

2.39%

45.4%

Mississippi

59.30%

39.7%

Mississippi

0.92%

39.7%

Missouri

62.20%

57.1%

Missouri

1.86%

57.1%

Montana

62.50%

56.5%

Montana

2.95%

56.5%

Nebraska

60.30%

60.3%

Nebraska

2.17%

60.3%

Nevada

56.40%

45.5%

Nevada

1.96%

45.5%

New Hampshire

70.20%

47.3%

New Hampshire

1.62%

47.3%

New Jersey

61.50%

41.8%

New Jersey

1.03%

41.8%

New Mexico

54.60%

40.0%

New Mexico

4.17%

40.0%

New York

53.10%

37.5%

New York

1.48%

37.5%

North Carolina

64.80%

50.5%

North Carolina

1.26%

50.5%

North Dakota

59.80%

64.1%

North Dakota

2.99%

64.1%

Ohio

64.50%

52.1%

Ohio

1.64%

52.1%

Oklahoma

49.20%

65.3%

Oklahoma

0.00%

65.3%

Oregon

63.10%

41.1%

Oregon

3.61%

41.1%

Pennsylvania

59.50%

48.8%

Pennsylvania

1.44%

48.8%

Rhode Island

58.00%

39.8%

Rhode Island

2.06%

39.8%

South Carolina

56.30%

54.9%

South Carolina

1.35%

54.9%

South Dakota

59.30%

61.5%

South Dakota

2.24%

61.5%

Tennessee

51.90%

61.1%

Tennessee

1.44%

61.1%

Texas

49.60%

52.6%

Texas

1.45%

52.6%

Utah

55.50%

46.6%

Utah

2.46%

46.6%

Vermont

60.70%

32.6%

Vermont

2.46%

32.6%

Virginia

66.10%

45.0%

Virginia

1.56%

45.0%

Washington

64.80%

38.3%

Washington

2.55%

38.3%

West Virginia

46.30%

68.7%

West Virginia

2.16%

68.7%

Wisconsin

72.90%

47.9%

Wisconsin

1.28%

47.9%

Wyoming

58.60%

70.1%

Wyoming

3.54%

70.1%

Pearson's Correlation

-0.17

Pearson's Correlation

0.03

Both non-voting and 3rd-party voting in 2012 show little correlation to support for Trump in 2016, though both nominally in the direction that would suggest Trump served as a vessel for protest votes: a slight negative correlation with 2012 voter turnout and slight positive correlation with 2012 3rd party results. For voter turnout, I'm using the eligible voter highest office data from the United States Electoral Project.

REVENGE OF ANTIGLOBALISTS

This last rationalisation is the one that is often cited in the media as the rise of "angry white men". This rationalisation, though largely ignored in the earlier campaign, is now the dominant focus of media attention. This rationalisation is often portrayed as white, middle-aged men--the pale, stale males--enraged at the rule of a Black President, furious at the prospect of a female one and livid at the shift of American culture towards one of inclusiveness and multiculturalism. However, there's another side to this view. One in which, despite their privilege, these men have faced genuine hardships. One in which their anger is not directed in violence against the non-white, non-male population which we considered earlier. This is a view that, in my opinion, was best explained by documentary filmmaker Michael Moore in clarity I could not hope to equal.

In this view, all of this anger (if we accept that it is distinct from the racism and sexism analysed above) comes from financial hardship and the social effects it has had. Despite the disparity in real living conditions between White and Non-White on average, White men are angrier than Black and feel as though they were made a promise that was then ripped away from them. What matters isn't necessarily that these individuals are doing it tough, but that they feel they are doing it tough, or tougher than they are owed. For a long time America has persisted on the lie that if you work hard and deserve success you can achieve it. The dark corollary to this assertion, unchallenged and patriotically insisted upon, is that if you don't have success it's because you don't deserve it. And when that lack of success falls on minorities, that rationalisation follows easily. It also deprived any impetus for support to the underprivileged. even with minimum welfare, no socialised healthcare and poverty conditions that rival those found in third-world countries, it was easy to feel no obligation for government support. Now that poverty has come for the angry white men too; the ones who dreamed of better things, and the unfairness is revealed. But enough leftist socialist communist bleeding-heart liberal wishy-washy nonsense from me. How does Trump support correlate with job loss and redundancy from, among other things, competition in international manufacture?

Comparisons with state poverty rates and unemployment were negligible. The strongest correlation so far, at ~-0.57, demonstrates a moderate negative correlation between per capita income and support for Trump.

STATE

TRUMP SUPPORT

POVERTY LEVEL

UNEMPLOYMENT

INCOME PER CAPITA

Alabama

62.9%

18.5%

5.4%

$23,606

Alaska

52.9%

10.3%

6.9%

$33,062

Arizona

49.5%

17.4%

5.5%

$25,715

Arkansas

60.4%

19.1%

4.0%

$22,883

California

33.2%

15.3%

5.5%

$30,441

Colorado

44.4%

11.5%

3.6%

$32,357

Connecticut

41.7%

10.5%

5.4%

$39,373

Delaware

41.9%

12.4%

4.3%

$30,488

District of Columbia

4.1%

17.3%

6.1%

$45,877

Florida

49.1%

15.7%

4.7%

$26,582

Georgia

51.3%

17.0%

5.1%

$25,615

Hawaii

30.1%

10.6%

3.3%

$29,736

Idaho

59.2%

15.1%

3.8%

$23,938

Illinois

39.4%

13.6%

5.5%

$30,417

Indiana

57.2%

14.5%

4.5%

$25,140

Iowa

51.8%

12.2%

4.2%

$28,361

Kansas

57.2%

13.0%

4.4%

$27,870

Kentucky

62.5%

18.5%

5.0%

$23,684

Louisiana

58.1%

19.6%

6.4%

$24,800

Maine

45.2%

13.4%

4.1%

$27,978

Maryland

60.5%

9.7%

4.2%

$36,338

Massachusetts

33.5%

11.5%

3.6%

$36,593

Michigan

47.6%

15.8%

4.6%

$26,613

Minnesota

45.4%

10.2%

4.0%

$32,638

Mississippi

39.7%

22.0%

6.0%

$21,036

Missouri

57.1%

14.8%

5.2%

$26,126

Montana

56.5%

14.6%

4.3%

$25,989

Nebraska

60.3%

12.6%

3.2%

$27,446

Nevada

45.5%

14.7%

5.8%

$25,773

New Hampshire

47.3%

8.2%

2.9%

$34,691

New Jersey

41.8%

10.8%

5.3%

$37,288

New Mexico

40.0%

20.4%

6.7%

$23,683

New York

37.5%

15.4%

5.0%

$33,095

North Carolina

50.5%

16.4%

4.7%

$25,774

North Dakota

64.1%

11.0%

3.0%

$33,071

Ohio

52.1%

14.8%

4.8%

$26,937

Oklahoma

65.3%

16.1%

5.2%

$25,229

Oregon

41.1%

15.4%

5.5%

$27,646

Pennsylvania

48.8%

13.2%

5.7%

$29,220

Rhode Island

39.8%

13.9%

5.6%

$30,830

South Carolina

54.9%

16.6%

4.9%

$24,596

South Dakota

61.5%

13.7%

2.9%

$26,959

Tennessee

61.1%

16.7%

4.6%

$24,922

Texas

52.6%

15.9%

4.8%

$27,125

Utah

46.6%

11.3%

3.4%

$24,877

Vermont

32.6%

10.2%

3.3%

$29,178

Virginia

45.0%

11.2%

4.0%

$34,052

Washington

38.3%

12.2%

5.6%

$31,841

West Virginia

68.7%

17.9%

5.8%

$22,714

Wisconsin

47.9%

12.1%

4.1%

$28,213

Wyoming

70.1%

11.1%

5.3%

$29,698

Pearson's Correlation

0.11

-0.13

-0.57

But all of these metrics are too blunt. Measures of general hardship in a state will generally include a large proportion of the Non-White population due to the historical inequality with which these groups were treated. Data from the US Census Bureau allows a state by state breakdown of poverty, unemployment and income for "white alone":

STATE

TRUMP SUPPORT

POVERTY LEVEL

UNEMPLOYMENT

INCOME PER CAPITA

Alabama

62.9%

13.7%

5.5%

$28,235

Alaska

52.9%

6.6%

5.9%

$41,133

Arizona

49.5%

15.2%

6.0%

$29,115

Arkansas

60.4%

15.5%

4.9%

$25,864

California

33.2%

14.1%

6.8%

$35,523

Colorado

44.4%

10.4%

4.8%

$35,676

Connecticut

41.7%

7.9%

5.6%

$44,134

Delaware

41.9%

9.6%

5.5%

$34,522

District of Columbia

4.1%

7.1%

3.1%

$81,474

Florida

49.1%

13.6%

6.0%

$30,582

Georgia

51.3%

12.5%

5.2%

$31,583

Hawaii

30.1%

10.1%

5.3%

$40,010

Idaho

59.2%

14.4%

5.1%

$24,935

Illinois

39.4%

10.1%

5.2%

$35,754

Indiana

57.2%

12.2%

5.0%

$27,907

Iowa

51.8%

10.7%

3.6%

$29,973

Kansas

57.2%

11.2%

4.2%

$30,533

Kentucky

62.5%

17.1%

6.1%

$25,942

Louisiana

58.1%

13.2%

5.5%

$30,792

Maine

45.2%

12.7%

5.1%

$29,112

Maryland

60.5%

7.1%

4.2%

$44,016

Massachusetts

33.5%

9.2%

5.2%

$41,556

Michigan

47.6%

12.3%

5.5%

$30,171

Minnesota

45.4%

7.8%

3.5%

$35,930

Mississippi

39.7%

13.6%

5.8%

$26,281

Missouri

57.1%

12.5%

4.6%

$29,155

Montana

56.5%

12.7%

3.9%

$29,352

Nebraska

60.3%

10.6%

2.8%

$30,708

Nevada

45.5%

12.8%

7.4%

$30,382

New Hampshire

47.3%

7.9%

4.1%

$36,589

New Jersey

41.8%

8.2%

5.6%

$41,743

New Mexico

40.0%

17.6%

6.4%

$26,722

New York

37.5%

11.3%

5.1%

$40,483

North Carolina

50.5%

12.7%

5.4%

$30,430

North Dakota

64.1%

9.0%

2.1%

$35,895

Ohio

52.1%

11.6%

5.2%

$30,077

Oklahoma

65.3%

13.2%

4.7%

$28,919

Oregon

41.1%

14.5%

6.5%

$30,269

Pennsylvania

48.8%

10.3%

5.2%

$32,865

Rhode Island

39.8%

10.9%

5.2%

$34,749

South Carolina

54.9%

12.0%

5.6%

$29,899

South Dakota

61.5%

9.6%

2.9%

$30,461

Tennessee

61.1%

14.5%

5.2%

$28,338

Texas

52.6%

14.8%

5.2%

$30,067

Utah

46.6%

10.0%

3.7%

$27,132

Vermont

32.6%

9.7%

3.7%

$31,747

Virginia

45.0%

9.1%

4.5%

$38,687

Washington

38.3%

11.0%

5.6%

$35,872

West Virginia

68.7%

17.4%

7.0%

$23,840

Wisconsin

47.9%

9.6%

3.5%

$31,605

Wyoming

70.1%

10.8%

4.6%

$32,735

Pearson's Correlation

0.33

-0.07

-0.66

Focusing solely on white poverty levels sees the correlation in the data more than double to a point where it is only eclipsed by the racism and per-capita income metrics. However, at 0.33, this is only slightly stronger than the negative correlation between sexism and Trump support at 0.30, and no one is suggesting that Trump won on the back of feminist support.

Using only the White unemployment rates, the correlation becomes even more negligible.

However, there is (by psephological standards) a high negative correlation between white median wages and support for Trump. And while it's true that this merely points out the existence of a certain stereotype--the working class, White Trump voter--understanding voter demographics is important to understanding why Trump got elected contrary to all conventional wisdom. This was a section of the community that turned out to vote, and felt the need to stand up for something.

CONCLUSION

While much of this data operates as a proxy for some other social issue,
such as racism or anger at economic leadership, It is important to realise that there are several reasons for Trump's support. A candidate does not get elected by a single demographic. Not solely by a racist element, or by disillusioned working class voters, or conspiracy theorists who think Hillary Clinton orchestrated World War I from her Russian space-dreadnaught. Of the various reasons studied two comparatively strong correlations emerged.

For those who like to argue Trump supporters are not racist, it is worth noting that states prone to racial violence tend to be more pro-Trump. This should hardly need pointing out for a candidate endorsed by the Klan, but some not-insignificant part of Trump's supporter base comes from a xenophobia that has not been given a political vent as prominent or blatant as Trump before.

On the other hand, for those who, on the other hand, argue that all Trump supporters are hateful racists, it is noteworthy that being from a poor state, and particularly a state with a poor White
population, is a better indicator of support for Trump than being from a
state with more racially motivated Hate Crimes; some might, of course, argue that voting for Trump in and of itself should be a hate crime.

It is hard for some people to understand how anyone could support a candidate who has voiced the opinions Trump has and not inherently be a biggot. To these people I would suggest the voters need not agree with Trump's statements, only to rationalise them as 'speaking his mind', 'not what he meant', 'locker-room talk' and so forth. People who voted for Trump committed to one aspect or another of his personality or platform--as did Clinton supporters--and forgave the many flaws of their preferred candidate while exaggerating the other's.

There are, of course, many other factors--Trump's ability to seize the
zeitgeist, Clinton's many issues with engaging voters, the vast free
publicity news outlets offered Trump while underestimating his
potential, Trump's ability to give vague and often contradictory
promises worded so as to let each listener take what they liked and
disregard the rest and so forth. But there are several reasons voters latched on to Trump, some good and some less so.

TL;DR: There is some evidence that Trump had support due to his racist statements. He also appealed to a class of disenfranchised voter with legitimate (though arguably misdirected) grievances against the current system to the extend that they'd happily burn the whole thing down. There would have been other reasons as well, but the portrayal of Trump supporters as rampant racists or as righteous rebels are both partially correct, and partially incorrect.